One of the benefits of being an empiricist is that I have the luxury of being able to change my conclusions about any given topic whenever new facts are made available to me that alter the calculations by which I arrive at my conclusions. A few months ago, I was all but ready to give up on Iraq, which seemed more interested in fighting millennia-old sectarian squabbles than actually moving into the 21st Century and embracing liberal democracy. GOP candidates like
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, however, decided not to heed conventional wisdom and instead doubled-down on Iraq, with Rudy focusing on the need to create a stable Iraq that acts as our ally and not our enemy and McCain staying most true to the original NeoCon goal of a liberal democracy made possible through more troops and smarter management. While Democrats, the independent voters who decide elections, the Boomer Left who dominates the MSM, and even some Republican presidential candidates went south on Iraq, McCain and Giuliani stayed true to the cause. The latter are now being justified. Check out this excerpt from the New York Times of all places, as posted by the inimitable Glenn Reynolds:
“In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.”
Noting the sudden, er, surge of good-news stories from Iraq, reader C.J. Burch emails: “I think some media big wigs are getting nervous about their legacy.”
Democrats: I know you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq so that you can take control of all branches of government next year and wait for Hillary Clinton to tell you what to do, because you clearly don’t have the cajones to do anything on your own, like repeal the Internet gambling ban or keep your promises on curtailing pork, all of which would make you a lot more appealing to fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters who are feeling increasingly alienated by the GOP.
Boomer-generation journalists who rule the MSM: I know you get your kicks off of reliving the ’60s over and over again, because that’s when you could live off the ‘ol trust fund which has since been depleted and when you didn’t have to worry about your mortgage nor join the Hair Club For Men.
Republicans running for president who will remain unnamed: I know you will say anything to win the coming election, and that you can read public opinion polls, and that you’ve decided that the American people will no longer support American involvement in Iraq. Trust me, it’s quite clear to me that being president is your one and only goal.
What do all of the aforementioned individuals have in common? They have all been put to shame by Giuliani and McCain, who supported this war even in its most dire moments, and even when it was less popular than it is now, because they knew it was the right thing to do and because they saw the evidence on the ground that, as McCain pointed out during one Republican debate, the surge is working. It’s true that many, many mistakes have been made and that the current Republican administration has been utterly inept at running a military operation such as this. But with the evidence on the ground suggesting that Sen. McCain was right all along, and that sufficient military force could subdue the opponents of America in Mesopotamia, the goalposts in Iraq are moving as we speak. The question is no longer whether we leave Iraq to the Mahdi Army or whether we scrap the democratic government and install another Saddam. The question is now becoming whether we leave Iraq as a secular, poorly functioning illiberal democracy or whether we are able to create the secular, liberal democracy on the Euphrates that McCain and Lieberman and Kagan and Kristol have always wanted.
That Iraq become a secular society is non-negotiable if it is to further our goals in the war on terror. It is important to remember that the GWOT — a politically correct term that fails to capture the essence of this war — is not a conflict against global terrorism but the rightful quest to end the threat of expansionist, radical Islamism, that is, the use of force and violence to subject governments to sectarian Islamic rule. The reason that expansionist Islamism is such a threat, and that it is, to put it bluntly, our problem, is that in an age when weapons of mass destruction are readily available to those with sufficient resources, the continuing acquisition of oil-rich states by religious nuts with an expansionist Islamist agenda simply cannot be tolerated. To put it simply, the Islamists aren’t our problem. They’re everyone’s problem.
As such, a secular Iraq is both a state where al Qaeda isn’t welcome, as well as one where liberty and freedom would seductively penetrate the borders of adjoining nations. The president often refers to democracy as the addictive substance that will topple the theocratic regimes of the Middle East, but while democracy is important, there are plenty of illiberal democracies out there that, without a basis in liberty and the rule of law, result in just another form of oppression. Liberal democracy must be established in Iraq, of course, but far more important to making Iraq the envy of its neighbors is the creation of a society that is distinctly secular, one that allows men and women alike to realize their dreams and pursue their happiness free of the bonds of theocracy. Such a society will sport vibrant capitalism. Such a society will result in a thriving popular culture. Women will no longer be forced to hide their sexuality, and will thus be empowered through it. There will be freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of ideas, and freedom to do as one damned well pleases to do with mind and body. And there will be whiskey, and lots of it. I can’t wait to visit.
Such a development would yield scores of salivating Saudis and Iranians. That’s because a secular Iraq is one in which human nature is released, revealed, and unveiled. The theocracies of Arabdom are a perversion of human nature. A free Iraq such as the one I describe is the celebration of human nature. And once the humans of Iran and Saudi Arabia see just how much the mullahs are repressing their nature, it won’t be along before the mullahs quite literally lose their heads.
Radical Islamism is a cancer on the world. It must be exterminated, eviscerated, obliterated, and eliminated. Leaving Iraq to the Islamists after all this time, all this blood, and all the progress that we’ve made is not an option. But the war in Iraq must be fought both harder and smarter. Not since Ronald Reagan has America sported a leader who truly understands the power of human nature. Instead of mourning human nature like so many on today’s American Right, Ronald Reagan celebrated human nature; instead of trying to fight a quixotic battle against man’s self-interest, he promoted policies that channeled that self-interest into behavior that saved the American economy and rescued the world from Communism. The American leader who successfully turns back jihadism, if there is one, will be a leader who understands that the way to wean the Arab world from radical Islamism is through embracing the nature of man, not apologizing for it.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
The message I’m taking home from this is “Don’t vote for Paul”.
He’s the only candidate I can think of who didn’t support the surge.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Iraq as a secular nation is impossible. Sectarian differences will always animate the politics of the nation.
The question is much simpler will Iraq be controlled primarily by proxies for religious groups or will it be controlled by the tribes?
In either circumstance a liberal democracy is incompatible within the Iraq mind for generations. They do not have the cultural background to support liberal democracy and will not for many years.
A nation that is stable and anti-terrorist is the most we can realistically hope for.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
True to the cause?
McCain, yes.
Giuliani, no.
The fact is, Rudy is just as bad as the rest.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aj4BIbfDGIbE&refer=us
November 20th, 2007 at 1:32 am
#1 – the post was also a dig at romney, i think. in one debate he was hedging his bets on progres in Iraq
he got into semantics with mccain about whether the surge was working, or appeared to be working.
always wondered why liberals are so concerned with minor human/civil rights and feminist causes here, when in muslim countries
those issues are ENTIRELY ignored. you think there’s a glass ceiling in America? try being a woman in Iran.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:43 am
I think this takes a dig at the surrender party more than anything else.
Ron Paul is in his own little party and he has already clearly stated that he will not support the GOP nominee.
He obviously shouldn’t be running as a Republican, although he should run if he really wants to. How about the “Isolationist Party?”
November 20th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Ronald Reagan appealed to the human spirit and it’s unlimited potential, not to human nature. You don’t sound too much different than the Islamic fanatics – you want to force your religion of secularism on the Iraqi people.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:07 am
#4
That was just Sen. McCain being a jerk as usual. Here’s the transcript of Gov. Romney’s offense:
Looks like a statement of committment to success in Iraq. Sen. McCain decided that the word “apparently” was some sort of personal affront and went on the attack. If DaveG agrees then shame on him as well.
Truth is, Gov. Romney’s been the most Glenn Beckish of all the candidates when it comes to Jihadism and their goals to set up a caliphate.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Anyone plan on throwing Romney a 1 year anniversary party for when Mitt supported the surge? When did he support it again? Feb-07? Mittbots will be happy to know he wasn’t against it before he was for it. (he just hadn’t made up his mind yet). such a strong leader he is.
7, Mitt, do you support the surge:
“I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor.”
(December 28, 2006)
Mitt wants our vote, but he didn’t have a clue on the most important issue facing this country in this generation. Now he’s sure, which is why we’re gonna throw him a 1 year anniversary bash but we need a firm date as to when he actually supported the surge.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:22 am
GOLER: Governor Romney, you have suggested that U.S. troops in Iraq move to a support phase after the surge, which pretty much has to end in the spring, and a standby phase after that in Kuwait in Qatar.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems even Hillary Clinton is willing to commit troops to Iraq longer than that, sir.
ROMNEY: I don’t have a time frame that I’ve announced. What I’ve indicated is very consistent with what the president is speaking about and what we’re hearing from Iraq right now, and that is that the surge is apparently working.
We’re going to get a full report on that from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker very soon. But the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Brookings have come back with positive reports.
ROMNEY: If the surge is working, then we’re going to be able to start bringing back our troops levels slowly but surely, and play more of a support role over time. Ultimately, down the road, I would anticipate that we’re not going to have a permanent presence in Iraq, and we’ll be in a standby mode in surrounding nations.
But, of course, when we consider moving to a support role and bringing, at some stage, our troop levels back, we’re going to be doing that from a position of strength because the surge has worked.
There’s no question it’s essential for America to show that we are committed to success in Iraq. Our men and women are the bravest and most patriotic in the world that are over there fighting. We deserve to give them the kind of support they need to make this mission successful.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Speak for yourself Mitt!
“Romney suggested that he would be the most qualified to be commander-in-chief and that Hillary Clinton, if she’s the Democratic nominee, would have a similar policy on the Iraq war.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/mccain_and_romn.html
November 20th, 2007 at 3:29 am
The important part is the question in the Fox News debate. GOLER: Governor Romney, you have suggested that U.S. troops in Iraq move to a support phase after the surge, which pretty much has to end in the spring, and a standby phase after that in Kuwait in Qatar.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems even Hillary Clinton is willing to commit troops to Iraq longer than that, sir.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Er… so… the purposefully over-reaching questions from an MSM reporter equals a candidate statement now? Kinda like, when did you stop beating your wife? And I actually believe Hillary is lying to her base and will generally try to follow the same course Bush and the main GOP contenders are in Iraq – whether at all effectively is another question.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Excuse me, not an MSM reporter, but still a deliberate over-reach in an attempt to goad the questionee nonetheless.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 am
#8
Do you have a problem with a governor not giving opinions on national policy? That was Gov. Romney’s default policy.
As you noted, he came out strongly in favor of the surge shortly after he left office and announced his candidacy.
#10
Please provide the original op-ed. I don’t trust the Boston Globe, or Sen. McCain, to accurately report the contents of anything.
#11
Why would the question be the important part? Is it Wendel Goler’s job to put words in Gov. Romney’s mouth?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:54 am
John McCain’s rhetoric
Q: The biggest issue between Hillary and you clearly is the war in Iraq. You strongly support the troop surge. She wants to start pulling the troops out. Is that a winner for Republicans in 2008?
A: I don’t know. And I can’t be concerned. Because I know too many brave young Americans that are serving and sacrificing in Iraq, as we speak. I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.
John McCain’s record
An ardent supporter of President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 troops into Iraq, the senator, well known for his maverick streak, stayed on the presidential campaign trail rather than return to Washington for a rare Saturday session of the Senate called for a vote to begin debate on the president’s plan.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2796.html
November 20th, 2007 at 7:02 am
“Democrats: I know you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq so that you can take control of all branches of government next year and wait for Hillary Clinton to tell you what to do,..” ETC. ETC.
DaveG,
What a disappointment. Here I was thinking of you as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent political bloggers on the right. And then you come up with this totally asinine crap?
The surge is not working Dave.
The military aspect of it is showing some success in reducing violence to only about 280 dead Iraqis a week
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
- a level that were it size adjusted for our population, would be more than a 9/11 event each and every week.
I’m glad you are so proud that that is better than last year at this time.
But the whole point of the surge of course was to facilitate national reconciliation. But that has not moved one inch.
Some tribes, on either side, have aligned with us, for their own protection, but they dont work together to build a national government.
“The question is now becoming whether we leave Iraq as a secular, poorly functioning illiberal democracy or whether we are able to create the secular, liberal democracy on the Euphrates that McCain and Lieberman and Kagan and Kristol have always wanted.”
This is absolute insanity. Nothing has changed politically Dave. al-Sadr told his boys to stand down, before the surge even started going, and that is the primary reason for the lowering of violence. There is no progress toward any type of democracy at all – other than the most crudest sense – that the majority Shiites are in charge of the central government. The power remains, overwhelmingly, in the hands of Iranian-allied militias throughout the south (two main ones, who are still fighting each other), and those forces control a goodly chunk of the national government. Plus the Kurdish president whose life has been dedicated to breaking free from Iraq, of course.
“That Iraq become a secular society is non-negotiable if it is to further our goals in the war on terror. ”
Not that I disagree, but, good luck with that. Secularists are the smallest and weakest faction in Iraq.
The rest of your post is just the same ol’ pie in the sky fantasy we have been hearing for years. You truly have learned nothing, have you? We have spread violence and engendered radical opposition in the region. There has been essentially ZERO progress toward building any institutions of democracy. Secularism is weaker today than it was when we invaded.
The only thing that has changed is that the violence levels in 2007 are returning to the levels of 2005.
“Leaving Iraq to the Islamists after all this time, all this blood, and all the progress that we’ve made is not an option”
Which Islamists are you talking about? al-Q? In that case, dont worry. They were not there before. They came, made themselves very unwelcome, and they have no future.
If you mean the Shiite Islamists (Iran), then congratulations. Your neocons have overthrown a secular monster, and essentially turned over most of the country to Iranian allies.
“Ronald Reagan celebrated human nature;”
What on earth does that mean?
“he promoted policies that channeled that self-interest into behavior that saved the American economy and rescued the world from Communism”
huh? The American economy was saved by the inflation-destroying policies of the Fed, and its Chairman Paul Volker, appointed by Jimmy Carter. Reagan merely managed to sell the supply side nonsense that QUADRUPLED the national debt and burdened your generation, and generations to come with 6 TRILLION dollars of debt.
And he didnt rescue the world from Communism either. He was lucky enough to be president just before the Soviet system collapsed as a result of its own interal absurdities. And, of course, he was lucky enough to have his parties propagandists spend the next generation trying to take credit for that.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Tano, you stupid prick! “The military aspect of it is showing some success in reducing violence to only about 280 dead Iraqis a week” –
“Down from what?” is the question that has to be asked here. Nothing is meaningful unless it is relative in a context like this. This is like saying that Rudy Giuliani was awful as Mayor of New York — just look at how many murders happened during his last year in office! Everyone would know to say “Um, compared to what beforehand?” And you conveniently omit that number from your “analysis” above.
I try not to comment on the war too much except to comment on the motives of al-Qaeda and some of the background of the war that often gets overlooked (it’s astounding how little the fact that Libya gave up its WMD program due to the Iraq War is mentioned, for example), because I’ve done some reading on it. I tend to think that trained military professionals know how to run a war in a slightly more efficient and skilled manner than I do. Am I the only one that still believes that? It seems that every average citizen has an opinion about what we need to do next militarily. I’ve got a grand idea: let’s leave it up to the commanders on the ground!
November 20th, 2007 at 8:52 am
People should avoid inadvertently elevating our enemies by referring to them as “jihadi”/”jihadist.” I see no purpose in acknowledging murderers (would actually be “qaatil” or some other Arabic word based on the “q-t-l” root) as “Holy Warriors,” which is precisely what “jihadis” like to celebrate themselves for being. We’re fighting political mass murderers, not holy warriors — other than by perversion of what one might plausibly consider to be holy.
Islamist terrorists and especially Islamofascists are more apt general descriptions. It clearly is a brand of fascism to promote outright murder and random violence to suppress, intimidate, and exterminate one’s political adversaries.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
“Radical Islamism is a cancer on the world. It must be exterminated, eviscerated, obliterated, and eliminated.”
Agreed, but I think Islamism could be substituted for any other religion. The real enemy is religious fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism is equally dangerous as the Islamic variety.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Texas Conservative- You’re either a fool or incredibly ignorant if you really believe that.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Just because the American people have turned on the war doesn’t make the Bush policy inept. Tell me who would have handled it better. And don’t tell me its McCain’s more troops strategy–there was never any reason to believe the American people would stand for more troops. In the American political climate we have, Bush did ok–it is just that the going is tough. And the American people don’t have the patience to defeat terrorism. I thought the pundit who said the American people get frustrated in the driveup line at McDonald’s will never have the patience for a long war–had it right.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“Agreed, but I think Islamism could be substituted for any other religion. The real enemy is religious fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism is equally dangerous as the Islamic variety.”
I know this is a much in vogue sentiment, but it’s simply not so. Christianity and Islam are two very different sorts of religions, and you can’t begin to do the debate justice by including them all in a catch-all “religious fundamentalism”. As a Sovereign nation, the US has no interest whatever in whether people thousands of miles away are religious fundamentalists. They have every interest in whether these religious fundamentalists attempt to use religion as a cudgel to inflict physical damage on both their own country and ours. In this respect, Christian Fundamentalism and Islamism represent radically (pun intended) different threats. Islam, unlike Christianity, is an explicitly political religion. Islam, unlike Christianity, spread in it’s early years through conquest; muslim caliphates attempting to bring the whole world under the umma. The more radical elements share the same goal today and, as DaveG pointed out, are presented with a bevy of destructive means to enact those goals. In radical Islamism, you’re either a part of Dar al-Harb (the House of War) or Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). And if you’re in the former, and refuse to join the latter, woe to you.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
The title of this post is the understatement of the year. A year from now when
it sinks in what has been accomplished in Iraq, the American people will remember
that the Democrats tried to lose the war for political purposes and failed miserably.
No one likes a loser, especially when our national security is at stake. People
don’t fully appreciate what happened in Iraq this year, and most of them probably never
will. But if Al-Qaeda would have continued to have the upper hand there, we would
all be in deep trouble. Their recruitment efforts would have soared and money
would be pouring in. But they lost their big “primary” and now potential recruits
are running from Al-Qaeda like rats from a sinking ship. Not to say Al-Qaeda is
completely gone, but this a major defeat for them.
Also, Dave, I wouldn’t superimpose my own vision of a secular Iraq or to advocate imposing
partition like Brownback and others have done. The Iraqis will have to form their own ideas
about how to run their country and their own social organizaiton, and I doubt that it will
be as secular as you think. There are some good principles in Islam that should not
be discarded.
I know you hint that Romney did not support the war in Iraq, but as one
of the most strident supporters of the war myself, that is completely wrong. Romney
supported the surge and one of his best quotes from last Spring was “why can’t the
democrats form “victory” on their lips?”. McCain was better, but he did fall into
the trap of declaring victory a little too soon which made him look bad and I think
caused him to sink in the polls. Romney will be able to use this against the democrats
just as effectively as anyone else.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Here is a great quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn’t pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either”.
And that, my friends, is why the democrats will lose. It is the same reason that Kerry lost,
not for flip-flopping, but because he tried to use an American defeat for political
purposes. Because of their stupid arrogance, they will never ask for forgiveness and
they will go down to defeat.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178286/
November 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
“Tano, you stupid prick! …“Down from what?†is the question that has to be asked here. Nothing is meaningful unless it is relative in a context like this”
TLG,
I tried to helpfully include a link in my piece to a site that tracks Iraqi deaths in as objective a manner possible. If you go to their home page, you will see a graph of the trends over the past 4 1/2 years, and that should ansswer your question.
As it is my comment was pretty long. I cannot write a complete encylopedic analysis of the situation in the context of a blog-post-comment. Since so many of us have followed this war rather closely, I kinda hoped that there would be a base of common factual understanding to rely on amongst my fellow commenters. But failing that, I gave you the link,
“I tend to think that trained military professionals know how to run a war in a slightly more efficient and skilled manner than I do”
On a tactical level, sure. But wars are never run at the highest level by the military, except in military dictatorships. War is “diplomacy by other means”. It is an effort that enforces a particular foreign policy objective, and the war itself always becomes a huge factor in the changing forign policy environment. In a democracy, all political issues, including the nature of our foreign involvements, and properly the business of the citizenry.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
C’mon, there is just no definition of victory in Iraq. Israelis argue (like here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraqs-standard-of-safety.htm ) that no further improvement are in sight in Iraq.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
[...] race42008.com ” Blog Archive ” GOP Candidates Should Support Victory In … GOP Candidates Should Support Victory In Iraq … GOP candidates like … race42008.com/2007/11/20/gop-candidates-should-support-victory-in-iraq/trackback … [...]